I have seen both and I agree the Universal BD is better, but not much better and where in the world did you hear it's a 4K transfer? I'll just come out and say it, I think you just made that part up.

My understanding is that Criterion only releases what Universal provides and does additional work on them. I'm studying these caps pretty closely and I don't see a difference beyond the color timing, and I'm inclined to think the washed-out look of the theatrical cut (since this is a cold, clinical world) is closer to what Gilliam intended.

The Criterion box states "Restored HD digital transfer of Gilliam's 142-m cut, approved by Gilliam..."
Does it mean he approved the new transfer, or the cut? I'm guessing it's the former. Those Criterion screenshots look pretty bad compared to the Uni, but I haven't opened the Criterion box yet to actually watch it.

In English, it means that he approved the new transfer, but ... ... why parse English?

I watched this and couldn't get into it. Will someone please explain to me what this movie is about? lol

I do so love when people ask questions like this; it represents a fundamental flaw in the way these people watch movies.

While you're watching the movie (assuming you're even paying attention, which I would not take for granted), think about your reaction to any given moment. When the family is sitting there quietly and then the police come crashing in through the ceiling and windows, zip the father up, and then the man dryly reads the charges and hands out receipts after the obvious chaos they just caused to the poor family; what are you thinking about, what's your emotional reaction at that moment?

You can't possibly expect to understand a movie as a whole if you don't bother understanding it moment to moment while you're actually watching it.

In 2007, I bought a PS3 for 4 specific titles; in 2̶0̶1̶4̶ 2015, half of them haven't been released yet.

I do so love when people ask questions like this; it represents a fundamental flaw in the way these people watch movies.

While you're watching the movie (assuming you're even paying attention, which I would not take for granted), think about your reaction to any given moment. When the family is sitting there quietly and then the police come crashing in through the ceiling and windows, zip the father up, and then the man dryly reads the charges and hands out receipts after the obvious chaos they just caused to the poor family; what are you thinking about, what's your emotional reaction at that moment?

You can't possibly expect to understand a movie as a whole if you don't bother understanding it moment to moment while you're actually watching it.

There's really only the director's cut; the TV version is a studio hatchet job that should only ever be viewed as a textbook example of how to ruin a work of art.

Um...no. There's also the theatrical cut, which runs about 132 minutes, and is the cut that got the initial critical praise back in 1985 (deservedly so). You can get that on blu-ray, too, courtesy of Universal. This is NOT the "love conquers all" abomination that was recut for TV.

There's really only the director's cut; the TV version is a studio hatchet job that should only ever be viewed as a textbook example of how to ruin a work of art.

As mentioned, above, there is the US theatrical release, and Gilliam cooperated with its editing. He also edited a European cut, which is or is close to Criterion's so-called "Director's Cut." Both are available on Blu-ray: Universal in the US and a Fox, region-free, european cut from the UK, France and others.

Gilliam didn't have much to do with edited-for-tv cut, also known as the "love conquers all" cut, which Criterion includes with their release. Well! He may have told the studio to get lost when they asked for his help. Most people know that cut-for-tv movies aren't all there, so I'd say Criterion's inclusion of that cut is just filler material. I wasn't interested in watching it.

The most interesting cut would be the one he showed the LA Film Critics, whose praise got the studio to release the film. As far as I know, it has never been released on home video.

A lot of the controversy over this film was due to Gilliam's failure to live-up to his contractual obligation to deliver something with a shorter runtime than the film he tried to deliver.

Um...no. There's also the theatrical cut, which runs about 132 minutes, and is the cut that got the initial critical praise back in 1985 (deservedly so). You can get that on blu-ray, too, courtesy of Universal. This is NOT the "love conquers all" abomination that was recut for TV.

I prefer the theatrical cut to the extended Criterion/Director's cut.

True, but since Starman said "only $19.99," I assumed they were referring to the Criterion disc which only contains the Director and Love cuts; if Starman got the Universal disc for $19.99, they got ripped off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by popeflick

False.

It's an example of how the art of editing can fundamentally change a film.

And in this case, fundamentally changes it in a way that completely goes against what the movie was really about.

In 2007, I bought a PS3 for 4 specific titles; in 2̶0̶1̶4̶ 2015, half of them haven't been released yet.